"In the New Mass the Offertory was
replaced by a formula from the Talmud, a classic of hate-literature
directed against jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never
equaled."

by Craig Heimbichner

This article originally appeared in the March, 2004 issue of Catholic Family News, and back
on line by request.

Many articles have been written about the objectionable changes to the
Mass which culminated in the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, and scarcely
anything of substance can be added to the incisive Ottaviani
Intervention
or the exhaustive study of Michael Davies in his third volume of
Liturgical Revolution. Even
Cardinal Ratzinger is on record admitting
the practical disaster of the liturgical reform. It is obvious to
devout Catholics that the faithful have been submerged during the
period of the New Mass in a swamp marked by non-attendance, widespread
unbelief, immorality, irreverence, indifferentism, and compromise.
Catholics have seen even their formerly orthodox leaders flailing in a
quicksand of ambiguity. While the causes of this broad crisis cannot be
solely attributed to the changes in the Mass, an important connection
exists, since the rule lex credendi,
lex orandi (we
believe as we pray) remains vitally true. Yet one of the most subtle
and blasphemous changes in the prayer of the Mass has been overlooked.
We have been told that the Offertory was replaced by a "Jewish table
blessing" -----a change objectionable enough for a host
of reasons. But the reality is far worse: for the Offertory has been
replaced by a prayer with no connection to the practices of the Old
Testament Israelites, but rather which stems from Christ-rejecting
Rabbis who agreed with the Sanhedrin that demanded His death. The
astonishing truth is that in the New Mass, the Offertory, was replaced
by a formula from the Talmud, a classic of hate-literature directed
against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled. 1
This sacrilege was slipped past the faithful without notice, and
deserves exposure as yet one more reason to loudly demand the
restoration of a liturgy which honors rather than blasphemes the One
Who first said and instituted the Mass itself.

The Offertory had long been a target of the enemies of Christ and His
Church, since it clearly expresses the propitiatory content of the
Sacrifice of Christ which is repeated in an unbloody manner in the
Mass. The was the subject of a stern warning by Pope Pius XII in
Mediator Dei, some of the
pretended resurrection of early traditions
was patently fraudulent. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in
the supposed revival of a "Jewish table blessing" from the days of the
first Jewish converts to Christianity as a replacement for the
Offertory. We are supposed to believe that this scrapping of the
Offertory marks a return to the type of faith and liturgy of the
earliest Church, and furthermore supposedly reminds us of our Jewish
roots.

All of these alleged reasons and explanations are simply lies, and
their subversive nature is underscored by the fact that they succeeded
where Luther failed in eliminating the Offertory which he hated. The
lies behind this substitution are truly multiform. First, the Offertory
was not replaced by a Jewish table blessing, but by a rabbinical
blessing from the Talmud, as we will see below. Second, the Talmud was
not written during the life of Christ or His Apostles, and could not
have been reflective of anything in the early Church except the
traditions of its first enemies. In fact, the Talmud was written in
Babylon after the Rabbis had rejected the Messiah-----written in fact by
Rabbis in full and venomous agreement with that rejection. Third, the
Talmudic blessing is part of a list of "blessings" in the Talmud
which also contains curses of Christians. Fourth, what we now know as
Judaism-----the rabbinical swamp of
blasphemy and paganism codified in the Talmud-----has no connection to the
faith of the Old Testament, for it nullifies it (Matthew 15:1-9). Fifth, borrowing
any prayer from the Talmud is arguably treason to Christ, for the Talmud-----burned by several astute Popes-----contains
the most horrid blasphemies against both Jesus and Mary known to man,
only a few of which we will quote for purposes of documentation.

Before supporting these contentions, it is worth noting that the Second
Vatican Council Fathers were all warned that covert forces of Judaism
and Freemasonry were about to stage a "coup" at the Council, under the
guise of a "brotherly reconciliation" and under the pretext of
"bridge-building". This warning came in the form of a large and
thoroughly documented tome entitled, The
Plot Against the Church,
penned by several authors under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay. One of
the actual authors was Fr. Saenz y Arriaga, later the subject of a
questionable excommunication following his exposure of the public
wearing of the Jewish Ephod of Caiaphas by Paul VI-----an emblem replete with
Masonic as well as rabbinical symbolism.

It should also be emphasized that the architect of the New Mass,
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, has been well exposed as a secret
Freemason. A raid of an Italian Lodge in 1976 revealed a roster of
high-ranking Vatican prelates, their dates of initiation into
Freemasonry, and even their code-names. Bugnini entered the Brotherhood
on April 23, 1963. His code-name was Buan. 2

Several Popes had condemned Freemasonry, beginning with Clement XII
in 1738, and for good reason. The conspiratorial intent of Freemasonry
was not only indicated by its grisly oaths of blind obedience to
superiors under pain of assassination-----carried out in the famous
William Morgan case 3-----but also in the upper degrees
such as the Judaic
Kadosh 4 degree, wherein a mock crown and
mock papal tiara are stabbed
in an unmistakable symbolic attack against Church and State (this
degree is the 30th in the worldwide Scottish Rite today). 5
In addition,
the common Royal Arch Degree, considered a completion of the Third or
Master Mason Degree, contains an invocation "for the good of Masonry,
generally, but the Jewish nation in particular". 6
Hence Freemasonry as
an institution is clearly pledged to fight against the Church and the
well-ordered State, and to serve the interests of Judaism as embodied
in the Talmud. For these grave reasons several Popes recognized the
threat posed by this subversive secret society and censured it in the
strongest possible terms. 7

Nevertheless, Masons bored from within, in accordance with their own
plans which had been exposed by Monsignor Dillon in 1884 and published
by Pope Leo XIII one year later at his own expense-----after the Pope had
himself written Humanum Genus, the most
expansive papal condemnation of
Freemasonry ever penned. 8 One of the
ensuing Masonic triumphs against
the Church was clearly the wreckage of the liturgy, led by one of their
own members, as we have seen. The hallmarks of treachery are apparent
to those with eyes to see and a sensus
Catholicus and need no
recapitulation here. But this background of anti-Christian subversion
and intrigue needs to be stressed to understand the truly blasphemous
substitution of the Offertory with a nearly verbatim passage from the
masters to whom the Masonic institution is pledged in service as
evidenced in the Royal Arch Degree referenced above.

A modern myth is that this "Jewish table blessing" has its roots in
worship from the time of Ezra. Searching the Bible should reveal that
this story is absent from the pages of Holy Writ. Where, then, does it
originate? The Jewish Encyclopedia9 (published 1901-1906, consisting
of twelve volumes) tells us, in its article on Benedictions, that this
story of the origin of "blessings" in Judaism is a "rabbinical
tradition" in the Talmud itself-----in Berakoth 33a, as
indeed it is. As a
source of history, however, the Talmud should as a rule be rejected-----just as one should reject the
Talmudic stories that the Blessed Virgin
Mary was a "harlot" (Sanhedrin l06a), that Adam had sexual intercourse
with all the animals in the Garden of Eden (Yebamoth 63a), that Jesus
"learned witchcraft in Egypt" -----(Shabbos l04b), or that Jesus
is in Hell
being boiled in "hot excrement" (Gittin 57a). One must emphasize that
these passages and many others, long denied by Rabbis, have been
included in the most recent and authoritative translation of the Talmud-----several volumes of which are
still in production-----rendered by the
noted Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments
on prior truncated and censored versions of the Talmud: "Wherever the
Talmud makes derogatory reference to Jesus or to Christianity in
general, the comment was completely erased, and the name of Christ was
systematically removed
. . . " 10

In The Essential Talmud,
Rabbi Steinsaltz writes of the supreme
importance of the Babylonian Talmud: "Babylonian scholars were soon
attracted to the new center and thousands of disciples flocked to study
there." 11 What Christ condemned as "the
traditions of the elders"
(Mark 7:1-13), Rabbi
Steinsaltz calls the "oral law," stating that "the
work of preserving and codifying the vast body of oral law went on for
several generations . . . " 12 This oral
law was eventually written down as
the Talmud, the most important and authoritative version being the
lengthy Babylonian Talmud. Rabbi Steinsaltz traces the gradual
development and redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, commenting that
"the natural authorities best equipped to clarify problems were the
heads of the great Babylonian academies of
Sura and Pumbedita". Their authority was unquestioned, and consequently
the Talmud assumed the greatest possible importance, eclipsing the Old
Testament as the central text of Judaism: "Historically speaking,"
writes Rabbi Steinsaltz, "the Talmud is the central pillar of Jewish
culture" 13-----note: the Talmud, not the Old
Testament. From the redacted
Talmudic oral traditions, which Christ denounced as a special mark of
the Pharisees and Scribes, came what we know today to be Judaism. And
it is from this false religion, premised on the rejection of Jesus,
that the replacement of the Offertory in the Mass was culled.

Some might respond that Judaism is not a different religion, but merely
an earlier "phase" of the covenant now called Christianity, 14 with
prayers which after all are directed to the same God. In response to
this completely false characterization-----confusing as it does the
faith
of the Israelites with the corruptions of the Pharisees, already
well-entrenched in the time of Christ-----I will quote a Doctor of the
Church universally neglected today. St. John Chrysostom responds
incisively: "But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God.
God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of
God says so. For He said, 'If you were to know My Father, you would
also know Me. But you neither know Me nor do you know My Father.' Could
I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?" 15

The true origin of the so-called "Jewish table blessing" is by all
evidence the Talmud itself, since absent any other testimony one cannot
attribute an authentic Old Testament origin to the practices of those
who freely invented so many objectionable traditions that Christ
Himself condemned them on several occasions (Mark 7:1-13; Matthew
15:1-9; Matthew 23:25-26).
Hence in the Jewish Encyclopedia
explanation of "Benedictions," we find that "in the course of time
all these benedictions assumed a stereotyped form; and the rule is
given by Rab that, to be regarded as a regular benediction (Ber.
40b), every benediction must contain the name of God, and by R. Johanan
that it must contain the attribute of God's kingship." In other
words, the Talmud and its rabbinical authors dictated the form of the
blessing in Judaism which we later find brazenly imported into
the New Mass by Bugnini's committee.

By the time of Vatican II, of course, the voices crying out for "peace
with Judaism" were strong. A new "appreciation" of Judaism was
underway in the Church, culminating in the decree of Nostra Aetate that
the Jews did not kill Jesus. 16
Flogged by the whip of the Holocaust,
the Church was on the run and trying to prove its sympathy for
synagogues. If only Paul VI, in reviewing this audacious "swap" in the
Mass, had heeded the strong exhortation of St. John Chrysostom:
"Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I
must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you
not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer
that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is
this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no
means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and
abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read
the the sacred writings but reject their witness-----and this is a
mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage." 17
But the advice of this
Doctor of the Church was not only ignored, one could say it has been
the
target of a papal apology actually given within the Synagogue of Rome
on April 13, 1986. 18

The source of the replacement for the Offertory is clarified in the
Jewish Encyclopedia, which
introduces a list of "benedictions prescribed in the Talmud and adopted
in the liturgy; each of them
beginning with the formula 'Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God, King of
the Universe'!" Although the liturgy of Judaism is intended in the
above reference, ironically this Talmudic benediction became
repeated almost verbatim in the New Mass, But of even greater irony
is the fact that in this instance the Latin is closer in form to the
Talmud than the English translation done by the ICEL: for the Latin
reads,
Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi,
which translated literally
becomes Blessed are You, Lord, God of the universe, whereas the common
translation one encounters is Blessed are You, Lord God of all
creation. The difference is small, but the Latin more explicitly
parallels the Talmud, Tragically, those who hope for a
"purification" of the New Mass by rendering it in Latin would only
render the
blasphemous parallel between the Offertory's replacement and the Talmud
more exact.

As One reads the Talmud and the Jewish
Encyclopedia, it becomes
apparent that this formula extends to all benedictions, not merely to
table blessings. By the 2nd Century, states the Jewish Encyclopedia,
"they were already fixed as to form and number, since R. Meïr declares
it to be the duty of everyone to say one hundred benedictions
daily . . . " These "benedictions" include reciting a "blessing" after
vacating one's bowels ("who has formed man in wisdom and created many
orifices . . . "), thanking God for not making one a Gentile, and
thanking God "who hast not made me a woman."

The basic structure of benedictions was eventually crystallized into
eighteen. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments, "The Great Assembly . . . decided
to
compose a standard prayer reflecting the wishes and aspirations of the
entire people. It was composed of
eighteen benedictions, each dealing in brief with one subject. This
prayer, most of which has survived to the present-day and still
constitutes the basis of the synagogue service, consists of three
opening benedictions, three closing benedictions, and twelve
intermediate ones containing various requests and supplications." 19 Of particular note,
however, is the fact that the daily "blessings" of Judaism contain a
curse against Christians. As Professor Israel Shahak of
Hebrew University tells us, "in the most important section of the
weekday prayer-----the 'eighteen
blessings'-----there is a special curse,
originally directed against Christians, Jewish converts to
Christianity and other Jewish heretics: 'And may the apostates have no
hope, and all the Christians perish instantly.' 20"
Rabbi Steinsaltz
comments, "One of the alterations introduced into the service shortly
after the destruction [of the Second Temple] was not, however,
connected to the Temple itself but to the problem of the heretic,
Gnostic and Christian sects . . . Matters reached such a pass that the
Sanhedrin sages at Yavneh decided to add to the Shemoneh Esreh an additional
benediction (which is in fact a curse) on heretics 21
. . ." One
can see that the prayer-form in the New Mass was used not only for
table and even bathroom "blessings" but also to introduce curses of
Christians, as even hesitantly admitted by Rabbi Steinsaltz.

Such is the chill-inducing context of the source of the prayer which
replaced the Offertory in the New Mass. Let us be frank: the context is
nothing short of blasphemy and sacrilege, for the Talmud and its
authors were filled with hatred and curses-----verifiable today in the
Steinsaltz Talmud-----against Christ and
Christians. 22 The fact that
the version of the prayer present in the New Mass is not overtly
blasphemous is no more defense of its inclusion than would be the
liturgical importing of an innocent-sounding passage from Satanist
Meister Crowley's Book of the Law23 in the name of reaching out to the
"misguided" or "connecting with those who have a Seed of the Word
however obscure." Let us sweep aside such transparent hogwash and
call a spade a spade, a blasphemy a blasphemy, and loudly and
persistently demand of Rome the full restoration of what is ours by
right: a Mass not born in treason and marked by sacrilege.

For the Council Fathers were duly warned-----as was Paul VI. To quote from
the book handed to each bishop at the Second Vatican Council, "The
most infamous conspiracy is in progress against the Church. Her
enemies are working to destroy the most holy traditions and thus to
introduce dangerous and evil-intended reforms . . . They manifest a
hypocritical zeal to modernize the Church and to adapt it to the
present-day situation; but in reality they conceal the secret
intention of opening the gates . . . to prepare the further destruction
of Christianity. All this it is intended to put into effect at the
coming Vatican Council. We have proofs of how everything is being
planned in secret agreement . . . " 24
But today we do not need proof of
treasonous planning, for we can see the results in the implementation
of the
post-conciliar reforms-----including the reform of the
liturgy.
And nowhere is the hand of an enemy more clearly apparent than in the
replacement of the Offertory with words which are a hallmark of a
different religion, reproduced from the premier anti-Christian text
in the broad history of human resistance to grace.

Craig Heimbichner is a convert and recognized expert on Freemasonry and
the occult. A speaker and writer, he is available to discuss the
dangers of the occult and its influence are today. He may be reached in
care of Catholic Family News.

Footnotes: 1. For this reason the Talmud was ordered burned by
Innocent IV in Bulle Impia Judeorum
Perfidia, and later again by
several Popes. 2. The facts were related in a September 12, 1978
article in
Osservatore Politico in Rome,
Italy entitled La gran loggia
vaticana. The author reportedly died after printing the list of
prelates. 3.
Captain William Morgan, a Royal Arch Freemason, published the
Masonic rituals and secret oaths in 1827. He was kidnapped and murdered
by fellow Masons, an event which led to the original third political
party in the United States: the Anti-Mason Party. 4. Hebrew for "holy" or "consecrated." 5. See Secret
Societies
Illustrated, published by Masonic publisher Ezra A. Cook
Publications,
Inc., p. 123. 6. Duncan's Masonic
Ritual and Monitor, Malcolm C. Duncan, p. 249. 7. The excommunication of Freemasons was removed from
the 1983 Code
of Canon Law, although Cardinal Ratzinger subsequently clarified on
November 26, 1983 that membership is a "grave sin" which excludes one
from lawful reception of Holy Communion. One wonders, however, why
the explicit canonical ban was removed. It is certainly true that many
Catholics heard of this change and joined Masonic Lodges. 8. The reader is referred to the excellent summary of
these documents
by John Vennari, The Permanent
Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A
Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, (TAN Books
and Publishers, Inc.) Available from Catholic Family News, $4.00US
postpaid. 9. Available online at www. Jewishencyclopedia.com 10. Adin Steinsaltz, The
Essential Talmud, p. 84. 11. Adin Steinsaltz,
Ibid., p. 43. 12. Steinsaltz, Ibid.,
p. 41. 13. Ibid.,
p. 266. 14. The unbiblical and unCatholic premise of
Cardinal Ratzinger's work, Many
Religions-----One Covenant: Israel, the
Church and the World, Ignatius Press, 1999. 15. St. John Chrysostom, Discourse on Judaizing Christians,
III (2). 16. The day this was decreed, St. Simon of Trent was
removed from the
Roman Calendar-----the child Martyr who had been killed
by Jews on Good
Friday out of hatred of Christ. 17. St. John Chrysostom, Ibid., V (2). 18. John Paul II was directly
confronted on this occasion with the burning of the Talmud by his
predecessors. His response was to apologize for "the acts of
discrimination, unjustified limitation of religious freedom . . . in
regard to the Jews . . . by anyone," and he added,"I repeat, by
anyone." See Luigi Accattoli, Man of
the Millennium: John Paul II,
pp. 139-40.
If John Paul II included prior Popes in his apology, by clear
implication he included St. John Chrysostom, who was famous for his
fiery
denunciation of Talmudic poison. 19. Adin Steinsaltz,
Ibid., pp. 101-102. 20. Israel Shahak,
Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 63. 21. Adin Steinsaltz,
Ibid., p. 105. 22. An excellent summary of these
passages can be obtained in the concise reference work Judaism's
Strange Gods by Michael A. Hoffman II. 23. For example, would a neo-Catholic object to the
phrase, "There is
no bond that can unite the divided but love"? Innocent enough in
itself, it is a quotation from the odious Masonic Book of the
Lawof Crowley, which,liketheTalmud, contains blasphemy against
Jesus and
Mary. If one finds a quote from Crowley objectionable-----as
one should-----the objection holds a fortiori against the Rabbis who
lived closer to
the time of Christ, and yet denigrated Him with even worse blasphemy in
the Talmud. 24. Maurice Pinay,
The Plot Against the Church, p. 15.